**Document:** SOC AP25-0012 Planning Officer SOC
**Application:** AP25/0012 — Appeal against the refusal for the erection of a detached bungalow
**Decision:** Appeal accepted - PA APPROVED
**Decision Date:** 2025-10-17
**Parish:** Rushen
**Document Type:** appeal / appeal_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/88413-rushen-pound-lane-depot-appeal-against-refusal/documents/1142003

---

# SOC AP25-0012 Planning Officer SOC

## Please reply to the signatory

Our Ref:

Mr. A. Johnstone Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN

Dear Mr Johnstone,

Tel: (01624) 685950 Email: russell.williams@gov.im

Russell Williams Senior Planning Officer Date 20 May 2025 PA No: 25/90046/B Proposal: Erection of detached bungalow Address: Former Pound Lane Depot, Castletown Road, Port St Mary, IM9 5LT Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.

The application was determined under Delegated Powers dated 7 April 2025. This statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which is online and forms part of the planning file.

The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:

1. Appendix 1 – Statement of Case

In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then the four-year expiration condition should be attached along with consideration to any potential conditions included at 4.0 of the Statement of Case.

Yours sincerely,

#### Appendix 1 – Statement of Case

STATEMENT OF THE

Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate

Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to: Erection of detached bungalow Former Pound Lane Depot Castletown Road Port St Mary IM9 5LT Reference: 25/90046/B

Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Russell Williams Senior Planning Officer

### 1.0 Appeal against approval for PA 25/90046/B

The reasons for refusal were:

- 1. The application site is located in the open countryside on land that is not zoned for any particular purpose. Residential development of the site would not accord with the adopted settlement hierarchy and would encourage unsustainable development. Accordingly it is contrary to Strategic Policy 1, 2, 3 and 10 together with Spatial Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan.
- 2. The principle of development for the erection of a dwelling is not acceptable due to the application site being located in a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled with the land not being zoned for any particular purpose. The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3, Housing Policy 4 and Environment Policy 1, which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and the development will adversely affect the countryside which will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms. The application fails to demonstrate an overriding national need which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and there are reasonable and acceptable alternative site available on which new housing can be delivered.
- 3. The design and scale of the proposed dwelling, together with its finished appearance would not be sympathetic to the rural character of the area and. The resulting prominence of new residential development within the landscape will cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the rural street scene and landscape setting, on land that is not zoned for any purpose. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2 (b & c) of the Strategic Plan.

### 2.0 Legal and Policy Position

In accordance with Section 10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered;

S(10)(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval…, the Department shall have regard to —

- (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A;
- (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
- (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
- (d) all other material considerations.

Whilst there is a statutory duty to have regard to the above, it is recognised that weight to be afforded is a matter for the decision maker.

That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan does not have primacy as it does in the UK.

However, the Strategic Plan has been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base, public consultation and inquiry and are adopted by Tynwald.

### 3.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal

This report addresses the issues raised in the reasons for appeal directly. For a full assessment of the initial application please refer to the original Officer’s Report to Planning Committee, which would have been supplied with the initial documentation, and the minutes from the Planning Committee meeting.

Having reviewed the submitted Reasons for Appeal Document, it appears that there are 4 reasons for appeal.

FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY

- Reason 1. The site sustainable and suitably located

The Appellant states that refusal reason 1 is inaccurate and the site is not unsustainable. They state that the site has all essential services adjacent and is readily within reach of shops, school, medical and community facilities and employment in Port St Mary on foot. Several bus routes pass in front of the site. The proposal complies with Strategic Policies 10 and 10, in the Appellant’s view.

RESPONSE In regard to location and sustainability, Strategic Policy 1 states that development should make the best use of resources by “(c)being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.” Strategic Policy 10 “New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:

- (a) minimise journeys, especiallyby private car;
- (b) make best use of public transport;
- (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and
- (d) encourage pedestrian movement”

Whilst it is acknowledged that services, in regard to electricity, water and foul drainage may be accessible from the immediate area, the site is not well located in relation to services and facilities generally required for day to day living.

The Appellant contends that the site is walkable to shops, schools, medical and employment opportunities. No evidence has been submitted to date supporting this contention.

Port Erin is located to the west of the Appeal site. The nearest shops, supermarket and community facilities such as the church and dental practice are over 1.4km from the Appeal site, whilst the school and medical centre area approximately 700m away.

Port St Mary, a smaller settlement with fewer facilities, is located to the south and by road is approximately 1.75km from the village centre.

The Authority are not aware of any bus routes that run along Castletown Road.

The site is located within the open countryside and is distant from services and facilities, as described above. It is the view of the Authority that the development of a dwellinghouse on the Appeal site will foster the need to travel by private motor vehicle for the majority of travel movements.

The Appeal development is therefore contrary to Strategic Policies 1 and 10.

- Reason 2 – The site is previously developed land and development complies with Strategic Policy 1

The Appellant states that the site was previously used for no-countryside/greenfield land use and that it falls to be classed as previously developed land and that it was inappropriate to assess the application as being agricultural/greenfield land. They state the Appeal development complies with Strategic Policy 1 in making the best use of existing resources.

RESPONSE

StrategicPolicy 1 states that“Development should make the best use of resources by:

- (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and underused land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials;
- (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards;”

The Authority acknowledge at paragraph 7.4 of the delegated Officer report that the Appeal site would fall to be defined as “previously developed land”, though the absence of a significant amount of buildings means that it does not meet the test laid out in General Policy 3 that might otherwise allow an exception against development to exist.

The Appeal development would, in principle, make an efficient use of the site, but this does not itself outweigh the general principle against development in the countryside, as set out within General Policy 3 and associated Housing Policies, which are discussed in paragraphs 7.2-7.9 of the delegated Officer report.

- Reason 3 – The design responds top previous refusal and is in keeping with the surroundings, compliant with Strategic Policies 1 and 5 and General Policy 2 (b).

The Appellant contends that the design responds to a previous refusal on the site, and that the dwelling is no longer 2 storey in scale and fits in with the landscape of the area. They note that nearby dwellings are not traditional in design and the development would not be prominent in the landscape, with materials matching the surroundings.

RESPONSE The rationale is that they should follow a more traditional vernacular as noted in planning circular 3/91, to ensure any visual impact is appropriate for the countryside.

Strategic Policy 5 states that “New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.”

General Policy 2(b) states that development will be permitted provided that it (b) “respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;”

The Appeal site is located close to two small rendered bungalows that are of a traditional vernacular. Any other dwellings in the wider area do not relate visually to the Appeal site. The Appeal site is otherwise isolated in the open countryside, with the area characterised by open fields and the occasional residential properties located off the highway.

The Appeal development comprises a modest bungalow, with a low level hipped roof and projections to the front and rear. The building would be finished in a combination of materials, including grey stone cladding, dark grey composite weather boarding and smooth cast render to the walls, anthracite concrete tiles and anthracite uPVC fenestration.

The Appeal development is clearly at odds with Policies 2 and 3 of Circular 3/91, with it lacking a suitable proportion and form. Materials do not strictly accord with Policy 4 of the Circular and the fenestration design is similarly conflicting with Policy 5.

The site is readily visible from public vantage points along the highway and despite its proximity to two small dwellings to the West, any new build on the otherwise vacant site would form a prominent new addition within the street scene and wider landscape.

It is the view of the Authority that the design and finished appearance of the proposed dwelling are at odds with the rural character of the area and would result in demonstrable harm to the landscape and visual amenity. Detailed analysis of these matters are set out in paragraphs 7.10-07.18 of the delegated Officer report.

The Authority maintains the view that the Appeal development conflicts with Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2 (b), as well as those policies set out in the reason for refusal.

### 4.0 Potential Conditions

In the event that the Inspector is minded to recommend approval it is recommended that the conditions and informative as set out below are utilised by the Inspector.

- 1) The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

- 2) The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in full accordance with the approved materials and finishes detailed in Dr No 1583.11.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the locality.

- 3) No development shall take place until full details of soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of the retention of existing landscaping and new planting showing, type, size and position of each. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the kennel extension, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

- 4) The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained as such. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
- 5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling, hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

- 6) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

Informative:

1) This approval relates to the following drawings and documents received on 14th and 20th February 2025:

Dr No 1583.11 – Approval Drawing – Location Plan, Site Plan, Proposed floor plan and elevations Dr No 1583.10 Rev 1 – Approval Drawing – Existing Site Plan and Visibility Splays

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/88413-rushen-pound-lane-depot-appeal-against-refusal/documents/1142003*